Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Expert Witness Called "Borderline Incompetent"
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Prof. Johan Pouwelse of Delft University — one of the world's foremost experts on the science of P2P file sharing and the very same Prof. Pouwelse who stopped the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart in its tracks back in 2005 — has submitted an expert witness report characterizing the work of the RIAA's expert, Dr. Doug Jacobson, as 'borderline incompetence.' The report (PDF), filed in UMG v. Lindor, pointed out, among other things, that the steps needed to be taken in a copyright infringement investigation were not taken, that Jacobson's work lacked 'in-depth analysis' and 'proper scientific scrutiny,' that Jacobson's reports were 'factually erroneous,' and that they were contradicted by his own deposition testimony. This is the first expert witness report of which we are aware since the Free Software Foundation announced that it would be coming to the aid of RIAA defendants."
Feel free to substitute "shaky" with "unfounded".
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
To me it sounds like more like "borderline dishonest". Anybody with a Ph.D (especially in something technical) is automatically going to have a strong understanding of the scientific method.
When someone in this position does things that are "unscientific", it means they know that a respectable study won't produce the desired conclusions.
After reviewing the material listed below I conclude the following
A)Two reports by Dr Jacobson where[sic] based in itotal on roughly an hour of work
indicates that Dr Jacobson is not competent to judge the accuracy of information...
the investigative process has been unprofessional
and of course the incompetence claim. The brilliance of this is that in reality Pouwelse hasn't done that much work himself because he just uses the report itself to slam the guy down. This isn't a case of an independent study finding a different result, this is the original report itself undermining its own principle.
Its like a Daily Show episode playing out in court.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
He was hired by the RIAA as an expert witness, and obviously felt, either consciously or subconsciously, that in exchange for the money he was paid, that he should please his benefactors. I think this is the only type of witness they could have employed however, as any expert who had a higher moral compass, or ability to take an unbiased view of the task at hand, would find that the RIAA's arguments are indeed, seriously lacking in substance.
The Mothership
Actually, I thought he was being quite nice. The way I see it, he wanted to say "willfully" in his paper but settled for the more polite term "borderline" instead. If his report is as strong as it sounds, the judge will fill in the blanks. =P
Posting on slashdot is all well and good, but the EFF can only continue its work if you support them financially !
I'm a member.. are you?
Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
he's calling his work borderline incompetence, and specifically his work for the RIAA in these cases. then he goes on to say exactly what parts he is looking at to come to the conclusion that his work demonstrates incompetence. i read the document, not thoroughly, but many of his points are valid. jacobsen claims he knows the methods and software mediasentry uses, then testifies he really does not. same for verizon and IP address distribution/allocation/whatever. to claim a vast, detailed knowledge about something, but only display the knowledge you really have and blanket it under a broad, generic definition of how something really is and/or works (then base a lawsuit around it!) is demonstrating [borderline] incompetence
i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
What smear? If he doesn't know what he's talking about on a given subject but insists that he does, it is perfectly fair to point that out, which this report has done. If his actions and testimony is borderline incompetent, then so be it. Name and reputation are only indicative of current credibility. If testing and research erodes that credibility, then it's his problem, and not the FSF's.
Incidentally, I believe that in the legal world the terms "competence" and "incompetent" mean something specific, and IIRC it is not name-calling to label an expert witness as either. (e.g. "competent to stand trial").
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Yes, when incompetent expert witnesses are called to the stand, we absolutely do want them called incompetent. Even Dr Michael Behe has years of experience in real world biology, it doesn't make him any less of a quack. Same for this guy, I don't know if his published research is quackery, or if he's testifying beyond his field, but it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. Have you even read the testimony in question?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If he's not incompetent, I will accept that he's a liar.
Are we seriously running a /. article based on what one litigant is saying about another's position?
/.), it's not news until a judge says it.
Whichever side you favor (and we all know who that is on
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
You just vouched for someone. You can't do that anonymously, it makes no sense and has no credibility.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
I mean, really. Dr. Jacobsen's background speaks for itself. He is a widely respected scientist with years of experience in real world forensics investigation. Trying to win your case by smearing his name and reputation will likely backfire with the judge.
Congratulations, you've got two kinds of stupid.
1) This is a fallacious appeal to authority. In fact, his background most definitly doesn't (and should not) speak for itself. If it did, all the RIAA would have to do is supply his name and the judge would evaluate his testimony in light of that. No, the words matter.
2) Judges do not use Slashdot or its comments to figure out how they're going to rule.
Another thing you (and your other respondents) may not know is that "incompetence" has a specific meaning in a legal context. Read that again, it's important and will be on the test later. Legal incompetence means that his expert testimony is not actually expert, or in other words "is not competent" to be considered the words of an expert. You don't become an expert witness just for having experience and getting your paycheck from a university. It's also about presenting your findings in a legally-supportable way, so when the judge calls his testimony "borderline incompetent," the judge is signalling that it may be likely to get thrown out.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Then how come you're an "Anonymous Coward". How do we know you're not a paid RIAA troll?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
> so when the judge calls his testimony "borderline incompetent," the judge is signalling that it may be likely to get thrown out.
...
... but I don't think he's a judge.
I really hate to undermine you because you make a lot of good points, but unless I've badly misread this whole story, it was an expert witness hired by the defense who called the RIAA's 'expert' testimony "borderline incompetent"
Now, don't misunderstand. I fully agree with that characterization. I was here on Slashdot (and Groklaw) helping to dissect every wrong statement in it I could find. I trawled through all those leaked MediaDefender emails to see if there were any juicy bits that could help at trial. This man is right!
Hopefully the judge WILL agree with this soon and we'll have a ruling making you retroactively correct, though!
Oh, I should mention one other thing. The RIAA *DOES* have an odd habit of citing random posts online and airing them in court. Mostly they focus on Mr. Beckerman's blog and try to use that against him in court, but I would _NOT_ put it past them to cite any other random comment online if they thought it would prove anything. I don't think it's bought them anything, and you're certainly correct that judges do not seem to pay much attention to them.
But it's still one of those things to be aware of, because I've seen plenty of evidence in legal filings that the RIAA is essentially cyber-stalking Mr. Beckerman, for all the good it will do them. Sort of like how SCO reads Groklaw all the time. Must be agonizing, that. Watching the public gawk at the train wreck you're making of your own business. I mean, even if the RIAA wins all these lawsuits, at best, they'll teach people to hate corporate music.
You're post sounds like pure RIAA-troll material, from the obligatory disclaimer I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and, for the most part, I hate how the RIAA conducted themselves, but this is pretty ridiculous to the pretense of fair mindedness I have to say I've pretty much lost all remaining respect I had for him to the sophistry Jacobson didn't say that MediaSentry's methods were correct. He said he assumed they were correct. There's a huge difference here. to the ludicrous payload which no one in the world, not even the RIAA lawyers, not even Jacobson himself, believes: Jacobson's testimony was perfectly fine. Your post sounds quite phony to my ear.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Far too much in this world is decided on the basis of name and reputation, and far too little on the basis of factual evidence, logic, and morality.
Was this supposed to be modded funny? I couldn't tell.